Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T08CM02268
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/02/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 3 SEPT 2008 T08CM02268/THE MEADOWS AT TANQUE VERDE REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW A. OK B. OK D. PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONNECTION TO PUBLIC R.O.W. FROM EACH BUILDING. RESUBMITTAL COMMENT: 1. PLEASE CLARIFY CONNECTION BY IDENTIFYING THE PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FOR EACH UNIT TO THE R.O.W. AND SHOW COMPLIANCE OF ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SLOPES AS PER ICC 117.1, SECTION 403.3. 2. PLEASE SHOW ALL PROPOSED RAMPS PLUS LARGE SCALE DETAILS SHOWING DIMENSIONS, SLOPES AND COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 405 AND 406 E. ONE PARKING SPACE PER EACH BUILDING IS TO BE "VAN ACCESSIBLE" AS PER 2006 IBC, CHAPTER 11 AND ICC 117.1, SECTION 502. RESUBMITTAL COMMENT: 1. PLEASE CLARIFY HOW THE FIVE EXTERIOR SPACES ARE "VAN ACCESSIBLE" AND COMPLIES WITH ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 502.2 AND 502.5 REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING WIDTH, AISLES, SIGNAGE, SURFACE SLOPES AND ETC. 2. PLEASE PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS SHOWING COMPLIANCE. F. PROVIDE OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION ON COVER SHEET AS PER 2006 IBC, CHAPTER 3. RESUBMITTAL COMMENT: 1. PLEASE CLARIFY OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION "R" AS DEFINED BY 2006 IBC, SECTION 310. G. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 1. AS INDICATED ON SHEET 1 OF 3, SITE PLAN CALCULATIONS, THAT ALL 48 VEHICLE SPACES PROVIDED ARE ACCESSIBLE. PLEASE CLARIFY HOW ALL THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PARKING (COVERED, UNCOVERED, AND CURB PARKING) SHOWN MEETS ACCESSIBILITY PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS PER 2006 IBC SECTION 1106 AND ICC 117.1, SECTION 502. PLEASE PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF EACH TYPE. 2. PLEASE ADJUST NOTE 3 FOR ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY SIDEWALKS TO MEET SLOPE REQUIREMENTS AS PER 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1, SECTION 403.3 NOT "ADA". END OF REVIEW |
| 09/04/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | |
| 09/11/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise General Note 5 to be consistent with Keynote 1 reagarding "Developing Area" setbacks rather than "Established Area" setbacks. 2. Per zoning administration letter July 24, 2007, this project is the construction of multi-family structures to fit to the existing plat from 1971. Per comments by Heather Thrall in the first review of this site plan, staff reviewed the project for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC) and Development Standards (DS) - and for site plan content outlined under DS 2-02. Note that alley access to these units is not in conformance with the LUC, however, it is in conformance with the existing development. 3. Also, per Heather Thrall's previous comments, per DS 3-05 and LUC 3.3.7.6, tandem parking in multi-family developments is not permitted. Parking must be designed to meet DS 3-05, with striping, back up spurs, minimum PAAL requirements to access the parking, etc. The response comments indicate that tandem parking spaces have been removed from the calculations but they are still indicated on the drawing. Please clarify how parking requirements (with a total of 48 parking spaces required/provided per calcs) will be met without tandem parking 4. The sidewalk indicated by Keynotes 2 and 3 is said to meet ADA accessibility requirements but along the entire length of this sidewalk numerous existing utility pedestals, electical transformers, etc. are shown to be placed within the proposed sidewalk area. Please clarify and revise plan as may be necessary. 5. Provide detail drawings for both class 1 and class 2 bike parking. |
| 09/16/2008 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/22/2008 | CPIERCE1 | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Needs Review |